I beg to move

That this Assembly acknowledges the positive impact that the European regional development fund and the European social fund have had on our society; notes British Government failure to deliver on the commitment to fully replace EU funding after Brexit; further notes that the previous British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund does not constitute the full replacement of EU funding; recognises the uncertainty for community and voluntary sector organisations regarding the continuation of the Shared Prosperity Fund post 2025; and calls on the current British Government to fulfil their promise to replace EU funding in full and to provide certainty for community and voluntary sector organisations beyond March 2025.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

A chairde

[Translation: Friends]

the folly of Brexit is playing out across all our communities in the North. The loss of funding, such as the European social fund (ESF) and the European regional development fund (ERDF), is impacting vital services across the community and voluntary sector, causing uncertainty in services that are often most needed by the most vulnerable groups across society.

We in Sinn Féin opposed Brexit, as we understood the importance of continued European Union support for our community and voluntary sector, peacebuilding, our agriculture and our economic development. The British Government have to date failed to live up to their commitment to replace European funding in its entirety.That failure to replace funding has placed many groups in a precarious position and has caused uncertainty about their long-term sustainability and their ability to provide the services that are so badly needed. The Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) of £127 million over three years represents a shortfall of approximately £23 million per year for programmes that work to combat poverty and increase social cohesion, reduce economic inactivity and increase the skills base that is so important to our economy.

Services provided by the voluntary and community sector are of particular importance to our rural communities. For example, community transport is a vital service that connects many isolated people to essential amenities. NICVA has reported that, of 216,000 journeys taken on community transport in 2016, 46% were for health-related matters and transporting patients to hospital appointments when other means of transport were simply not available.

I also cite the important work of groups in my constituency, such as First Steps Women's Centre in Dungannon, which provides much-needed support. I hosted the Committee for Communities there for it to see at first hand the support that the centre provides particularly to women in south Tyrone in education, skills, child support, language development and in so many other important ways. I flag to Members the fact that First Steps Women's Centre will present here in the form of a human library on 8 October. I encourage MLAs to take the opportunity to meet them.

Voluntary and community and social enterprise organisations employ approximately 53,600 people across the North in the provision of mental health, disability and autism services and on projects dedicated to alleviating poverty, helping the homeless and those who struggle with addiction, assisting with employment skills development and assisting women to enter the workforce. Between 2014 and 2020, the ESF programme supported over 77,000 people into employment. The impact of the loss of £23 million per year is being felt by groups such as the Training for Women Network in east Belfast, which has already had its funding cut from 8% to 3·7% and faces yet another cliff edge as March 2025 approaches.

The Shared Prosperity Fund, administered from the distance of Westminster, is problematic and should, rather, be delivered through our Executive and Departments, which have a much clearer understanding of where the money is best spent to deliver the best outcomes across our communities. Local projects that provide local services to vulnerable people, create jobs and provide opportunities for young people are far better understood by local representatives and organisations, who understand the specific needs of their clients and communities.

The Sinn Féin Minister of Finance, Caoimhe Archibald, continues to lobby the British Government on funding guarantees beyond March 2025. I am sure that Members will be keen to hear about progress on that. Sinn Féin MPs have supported NICVA's calls for assurance from the British Government on the continuation of vital funding for the community and voluntary sector through the Shared Prosperity Fund. Just last week, John Finucane and Paul Maskey were in Westminster, meeting Minister Alex Norris to urge him to provide clarity on funding for the community and voluntary organisations that, we all know, form the backbone of our communities, providing transformational services for young people, workers and families.

There is no guarantee that the Labour Government will continue the Shared Prosperity Fund in its current form. Regardless of that, we need community groups that rely on it to have clarity on funding as soon as possible and to be given a guarantee that the funding will continue beyond 2025. I ask Members to support the motion.

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "post 2025;" and insert: "calls on the current Government to fulfil the promise to replace EU funding in full and to provide certainty for community and voluntary sector organisations beyond March 2025; and further calls on the Minister of Finance to make it clear to the Government that future programmes must be developed with due regard to the Executive's agreed priorities, and with meaningful input from local Ministers, in order to maximise opportunities for communities and projects across Northern Ireland."

You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Other Members who speak will have five minutes.

I welcome the motion's bringing to the Floor the critical issue of the funding of the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland, and I thank the Members for the opportunity to speak to it. Importantly, as chair of the all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, I welcome the opportunity to formally recognise once again on the Floor the value of the sector. Its contribution to the delivery of positive outcomes across society in Northern Ireland is critical to every Department in delivering public services at the heart of communities in every constituency, urban and, especially, rural, such as my constituency of South Down. They deserve clarity about the sustainability of their funding.

The DUP believes that the UK Government have a responsibility to provide clarity on the future of the funding without delay. It is appalling that community and voluntary organisations, which do essential work, have been left in such an uncertain position. The cliff edge of March 2025 must be removed. With organisations, sadly, preparing to put staff on three months' notice, the decision-making cliff edge is even closer. We need clarity before December of this year. It is urgent: staff in the sector are skilled and valued, and they deserve clarity. We, as a society, cannot afford our services to collapse as we get closer to the cliff edge.

We want to see the spending power that was provided under the EU structural funds replicated and enhanced. The UK always paid more into the EU than it received back under structural funding. There can be no excuse for any shortfall in the funding now. The DUP does not accept that the situation was in some way inevitable as a result of our exit from the EU. Ultimately, previous Governments made promises that they have not honoured. We are also of the view that long-term, multi-annual budgeting for replacement EU funds should be a priority in what comes next. When the DUP held the Department for the Economy, it secured funding to ensure that projects benefiting from the European social fund were extended to March 2023. However, we need the Government's support to go beyond the temporary fixes.

Sinn Féin's motion focuses primarily on the quantum of the funding provided under the Shared Prosperity Fund. The size of the pot is, of course, extremely important. However, it is also critical that the priorities of future programmes better reflect the needs and circumstances of communities in Northern Ireland. Local projects have been hit with a double whammy: not only are we receiving less than we ought to, but the reduced funding that is coming is not being directed in the right way to meet local needs. Over the past two years, we repeatedly sought clarity on when shared prosperity funding would be available, how it would be administered and the degree of input that would be afforded to local Ministers. It is clear that, on all those fronts, the engagement of the previous Government was severely lacking. We want to see that remedied in future Northern Ireland investment plans. We have always been clear that the aims and funding objectives of the Shared Prosperity Fund must align with the Executive's agreed plans for economic growth and social inclusion. We cannot be in a situation again where funding coming from the UK Government duplicates aims already covered by an Executive programme or where Northern Ireland's unique circumstances are not reflected in the development or administration of the funding.

Equally, the DUP does not believe that providing a more meaningful role for the devolved Administrations in deciding how and where the funding is targeted needs to be at the expense of retaining a national approach to providing greater economic and social cohesion between different parts of the United Kingdom. Given the tough decisions that will need to be taken by Executive Ministers in the coming weeks and months, we, on balance, do not believe that adding to the challenges facing our Departments by devolving responsibility for the schemes solely to local Ministers would be prudent or conducive to providing greater certainty to the community and voluntary sector.

It should be noted that, even under the framework of the previous EU structural funds, there was a role for the UK Government, working in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. That should be the blueprint. Locally, there is a need to enhance work with local projects to ensure that they are able to compete for funding effectively. It is timely that the critical nature of funding for the voluntary and community sector has been raised on the same day that consultation on the draft Programme for Government was brought to the Chamber, as organisations in that sector play an incredibly valuable role in this.

We support the call for the UK Government to honour their funding promises and provide clarity on the future of the funding without delay. Our amendment adds the call on the UK Government, working in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, to deliver on meaningful local projects that add value in our communities. I commend the amendment to the House.

Thank you for proposing the amendment.

There is no doubt that our community and voluntary sector offers invaluable support to our society by helping to tackle economic, social and environmental challenges and often plugging gaps where government provision has fallen short. Yet, be it through the cuts imposed through the Secretary of State's punishment Budget during the absence of this Assembly and Executive, or through their funding being cast aside as collateral in the reckless and ideological pursuit of Brexit, those organisations have been treated shamefully by politicians in recent years.

At the end of 2022, I was contacted by Appleby Trust, an organisation in my constituency that offers vital supported employment opportunities for people with disabilities and which had benefited from the European social fund. That work is not just a nice, added extra but is absolutely essential to promote equality and tackle economic inactivity. I felt, frankly, embarrassed that, as this incredible organisation went about its work whilst facing a Brexit-shaped hole in its finances, there was no Assembly and Executive for them to turn to and no clear direction from the UK Government on replacement funding. That was despite a manifesto commitment from the Conservative Government that they would replace EU funding in full — another in the litany of unkept promises left in their wake.

Eventually, at the last moment, clarity came in the shape of the Shared Prosperity Fund, and, instead of the like-for-like replacement for ESF and European regional development funding that was promised, the transition proved disastrous, with thousands losing out on vital support, the loss of up to £23 million per year and a power grab, removing the devolved nations' role in administering the funding. That change has arguably been felt most acutely in Northern Ireland, as it is no secret that we were a net beneficiary of EU structural funds. Those allocations were made on the basis of our need to tackle issues around regional imbalance, economic inactivity and underinvestment, and if the UK Government are serious about the so-called levelling up agenda, replacement funding ought to be allocated on the same basis.

We know that the UK Government's role in administering funding means that, in some respects, there are now two masters, with risk of duplication of the work between local Departments and those in Whitehall, a lack of understanding of the needs and circumstances of local communities here and a risk that the projects funded do not neatly align with the Executive's strategic priorities.

Despite all the barriers that were thrown up, the sector responded with agility, often with creative consortium bids, to preserve as many of the services that they offered as possible. It is unforgivable, therefore, that after all the strain that those organisations have been placed under, they again peer over another cliff edge, with uncertainty on future funding beyond March 2025. Such uncertainty hits the community and voluntary sector harder than other parts of our economy. Staff have to be placed on protected notice and preparation commenced to deliver services differently or, worse, to cease delivering services altogether. Once services and expertise are lost, it is almost impossible to replace them. To lose them would be a false economy, heaping even further cost and pressure onto our public services. After all that they have been through, the least that we can do for those organisations and their service users is to deliver sustainable funding to support the positive change that they bring to our society.

It now falls to the UK Government to make good on the promises made by the previous Government, and it is vital that they move swiftly. We need clarity on the short-term future of SPF as a transitional measure to give organisations in receipt of that funding the certainty that they so desperately need. Beyond that, we have a real opportunity to get replacement EU funding right. Together, the Executive can work with the UK Government to co-design a sustainable replacement with the community and voluntary sector, and I hope that the Finance Minister will take those representations to the Treasury and the Department on the Executive's behalf.

Once again, Northern Ireland finds itself teetering on a cliff edge. It is a term that we have become horribly used to. This time, it is due to the previous UK Government's failure to replace essential EU funding, which is picked out in the motion and the amendment. At other times, however, it has been due to having no Assembly and no accountability. How many times must we face uncertainty, whether from the removal of critical financial support or the refusal of politicians to take their seats? It is an all-too-familiar cycle, sadly, for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland are those who pay the price.

The European regional development fund and the European social fund were more than just bureaucratic lines in a budget. They were indeed lifelines for many people. They provided tangible life-changing benefits to some of our most vulnerable communities and, in particular, the community and voluntary sector — especially those in the area of disability and learning disability — which has empowered thousands of people to gain skills, employment and volunteering opportunities that have transformed not only their lives but the lives of their families and the communities in which they live. Those organisations that rely on this funding are the unsung heroes of society. They help people with disabilities to break out of isolation and into meaningful roles that build self-esteem and enrich our collective future.

Despite that indispensable work, the voluntary sector is facing a funding cliff edge, with no guarantees beyond March 2025. Let us be clear: the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, introduced by the previous Government, is not a full replacement for the EU funding that Northern Ireland was promised post Brexit. Without real action and long-term solutions, we will lose skilled staff, vital services and, most importantly, the trust of those who rely on the supports. The human cost could be devastating, with more people becoming marginalised from the labour market and more vulnerable individuals pushed further into the fringes of society. The Assembly must — with one voice — call on the new Labour-controlled UK Government to fulfil the commitment of the previous Administration to replace EU funding in full. While we are at it, let us not forget that the new UK Government, under Labour, have an obligation to reverse the broken promises that were given pre Brexit and its so-called sunny uplands. Let us be honest: so far, Brexit has been a disaster for Northern Ireland. It has created not only an economic strain but an Irish Sea trade border and a democratic deficit that, at times, threatens the very fabric of our political society.

The upcoming comprehensive spending review is the ideal moment for the new Government to right those wrongs and deliver deliberate, targeted funding that will transform the lives of those who need and deserve it the most. We cannot come back and keep coming back to the same cliff edges, asking the same questions and begging for the same solutions. The time for excuses is over. Our communities and services, and the people who rely on them, deserve better. It is time for decisive action to be taken, before it is too late.

I welcome the motion on the future of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. The delivery of that fund and the failure to replace the ESF was, and remains, a pressing challenge in all our communities across Northern Ireland. Other Members have outlined the failures of the delivery of the UK SPF here and how the moneys provided by it in the first place fell far, far short of those funds provided under the European Union. For many years, through our membership of the European Union, the ESF was the lifeblood of our communities, sustaining projects and organisations that quickly became part of the core public service provision.

In Derry, we saw at first hand the damage caused by the removal of the European funding. It has ripped away from our city, and from such organisations as the Women's Centre Derry and the Derry Youth and Community Workshop, their people, their skills and the community service that goes with them. Those organisations, and many, many more across the North, were failed by the British Government as well as by the dysfunctional politics here in Stormont. Most of all, they were failed by the decision to leave the European Union. After that vote, the British Government had time to put in place a replacement scheme that was fit for purpose. I know that many of us in the Chamber lobbied hard for the SPF to be delivered in a way that would work for Northern Ireland, but we were unsuccessful.

The failure of the Government to align the fund with our priorities, and to deliver it over the heads of the people here, was inexcusable, and its centralised management by Whitehall was totally misguided. The levelling up White Paper states:

"Levelling Up will only be successful if local actors are empowered to develop solutions that work for their communities".

It is clear that, through the SPF, where the previous Government promised to level up, they actually levelled down, and communities paid the price. My community has paid that price. On that aspect, I therefore agree with the motion and with the call from the Member for South Down Diane Forsythe:

"future programmes must be developed with due regard to the Executive's agreed priorities, and with meaningful input from local Ministers".

I remind the Member that that would have been a lot easier if we had had an Executive in place. We cannot ignore that. Hearing from the parties that collapsed Stormont that we need proper input from Ministers into the scheme is simply a bit farcical, particularly when it comes to this issue, because they literally left the community organisations to fend for themselves for years, out in the cold, without a Government. Lessons must be learned, but one of the lessons should surely be that reform is needed to end the cycle of collapse and veto here.

Organisations now face yet another cliff edge, and, thanks to those various failures, they have lost faith in the ability of the British Government to protect them from falling off such a cliff. I hope that the Labour Government can prove them wrong. In a letter to me, the then shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, said that he was:

“all too aware of the consequences of the loss of European funding, and of the promise that the Government made — broken so far — that areas would not lose out.”

Now is the chance for his Government to recognise that challenge and put it right. Today is a chance for all of us to call on the Government to deliver clarity for those organisations.

Finally, it is important to state two facts about our responsibilities in this Building, regardless of any progress that is made in influencing the British Government. First, it was not only the British Government that defunded projects that previously operated under European funding. Departments provided match funding to those projects. Since 2016-17, the Executive paid statutory national match funding that amounted to tens of millions of pounds. When European funding disappeared, so did funding from our Departments. That cannot be forgotten. Secondly, although the implementation of the levelling-up agenda failed, the scheme's core principle — no one should be limited by geography — is right. We need our own levelling-up agenda in this Government. That is called regional balance. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 is one example —

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

— of legislation that we should look at when addressing regional imbalances in Northern Ireland.

As mentioned by all contributors today, the British Government's replacement for EU funding, the Shared Prosperity Fund, fell well short of what was delivered under the European social fund and the European regional development fund. As we know, the totality of funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund was £127 million over three years, whilst it was £65 million every year from the European structural and investment funds.

That failure, as mentioned, put many groups that have worked tirelessly to support the most vulnerable in all our neighbourhoods and communities at huge risk. It left many families and households at even greater risk, because people are employed by those projects, and they have families. They have skills, and they have worked tirelessly for years. It left them in jeopardy of becoming unemployed. Even more importantly, it left the people in the communities that are the furthest removed from the labour market without a safe space in their community to call into and seek help.

As someone who has worked under an ESF project for many years in the neighbourhoods and communities, I know that we have a wealth of talent. We have people who are so talented but who may, at the moment, have complex issues that have arisen throughout their lives, be it trauma, bereavement, mental health issues, childcare issues or caring issues. That group of people would die to get back to work to improve their income and make life better for their family. At the moment, however, they need support and assistance. I found that two of the biggest issues for women in particular were lack of confidence, where they just needed support and confidence to get back out into the workforce, and mental health, which was another huge issue. In any employment programme that I have run throughout the years with a range of organisations, 25% of the individuals who came through our doors had mental health issues. They needed that support.

By working in neighbourhoods and communities — that is where the local knowledge and expertise exist — you can connect those people to the range of services that is available. That is what is so important about the programmes.

That is why I want to come to the Shared Prosperity Programme. We have a range of organisations, and I think that all of us have had the opportunity to visit them. In my constituency, those include 21 Training, Mencap, Action Mental Health, Disability Action, NIACRO, Enterprise North West, Include Youth and Triax. Those organisations have worked here for not just the past few years but the past 15 to 20 years. They have gathered the expertise and experience to support our communities, and they play such a vital role, not only in providing employment and skills but in promoting social inclusion and combating poverty.

I had the privilege to go back to a project that I used work with. That was called Skills North West, but is it now called Success North West. In March, it did an interim evaluation of its current project, and it found that it is already exceeding its targets. More importantly, it spoke to the individuals who are currently benefiting from that and saw, in such a short time, the resilience of those individuals, who can only be admired for getting back out there, starting their training and education and starting to network. You can see their confidence and their ambition to get back into the workforce. You could not pay for that. If you could bottle the work that those organisations do on a daily basis for individuals who need support, it would be priceless.

I will also mention the employment and mentoring officers and staff in Success North West. The 18 staff who work there bring their skills, experience and drive to the table. However, those individuals are at a cliff edge. We need to commend their work and that of the organisations. We need to ensure that this crisis does not continue. Funding needs to be secured for those valuable services. The British Government must make clear their commitment to continue funding the Shared Prosperity Fund beyond March 2025 and to provide a full replacement for EU funding with local control over its use.

I welcome the motion. It rightly highlights that uncertainty over the continuation of funding for important services delivered through the voluntary and community sector, previously funded through the European regional development fund and the European social fund, is causing a crisis in respect of the continuation of those projects and the retention of staff as we approach the last six months of current replacement funding through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

My party has proposed an amendment that we hope will be supported. It takes nothing away from the Sinn Féin motion, but it highlights the need for a collaborative approach between central government at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Executive to maximise the impact of such future funding in Northern Ireland according to our collective, agreed priorities.

Three weeks ago, on 21 August, I attended a meeting with community and voluntary sector representatives, held at the premises of NICVA — the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action — to discuss the funding cliff edge that is fast approaching with the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is due to come to an end in March 2025. Also in attendance were MPs from all five main parties in Northern Ireland: the DUP, the UUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance. The voluntary and community sector groups represented at the meeting are all delivering employability support services.

We were told that, to date, approximately £57 million has been committed to Northern Ireland via the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to address economic inactivity. Via the fund, over 680 staff across 59 voluntary and community sector organisations throughout Northern Ireland are delivering tailored support across the region to over 11,500 people — I will say that again: 11,500 people — who are considered furthest from the labour market for a range of personal circumstances, including long-term health issues or disabilities. Those people are clients who would otherwise struggle to access mainstream services and support. Through that community-level support, literally thousands of people have been helped into employment or training and education for future employment.

There was agreement among all who were in attendance at that meeting that they would lobby the new Labour Government at Westminster for an initial 12-month extension to the Shared Prosperity Fund ahead of any spending review and for long-term funding for this important work. There was debate and a range of views expressed about the need to ensure that such funding is ring-fenced, recognising that if it were just to become part of the block grant to Northern Ireland, it could be at risk of being allocated to other pressing needs.

Of course, the UK paid more into the EU than we received back, but, post-Brexit, it is essential that government funding for employability support services, which was previously delivered through those EU funding streams, is prioritised and ring-fenced. Furthermore, given the impact of Brexit on the free movement of labour into the country, it is vital for our economy that those of our citizens who need additional support to become economically active should receive that support and encouragement for their own benefit and for the benefit of the economy.

I hope that this is an issue and a cause that all parties in the Assembly will be able to unite behind as they did at the meeting that I attended at NICVA.

I thank Colm Gildernew from Sinn Féin for proposing the motion and Diane Forsythe for tabling the amendment. To be honest, I support both, but I will support the amendment, because it names a Minister and asks for consortium working.

Newbies in the House may not know — others are bored of me saying this — that I worked in the community and voluntary sector for a very long time — it was in excess of 23 years — and in community transport for the 16 years before I came to the House. I will say honestly that European money is not the answer to everything, because, in the 16 years that I worked for community transport, I had one period where I had an employment contract that lasted for more than 12 months. Our Government do not fund the community and voluntary sector in a sustainable way.

I am not going to turn away money that is going to replace European funding. Of course we need that, but I sat with the permanent secretary in the Committee for Communities when he told us that he had asked the UK Government whether they could control and manage the payment of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund money out, because there was a fear that there would be duplication. That control and management were not allowed to happen, and there was duplication. There was duplication of work that was being done by our councils, other Departments and sections of Departments, and it did not make sense. If we are going to ask the British Government to replace the money, we should ask them to allow us to set the priorities.

Today, we had the draft Programme for Government, which has set out Northern Ireland's priorities. Those priorities are key. They have been put into the Programme for Government for a reason. They have been put there as reasons why we can make this place better, and that is what we should be doing. It is not a lot of use to us in Northern Ireland to take forward priorities that are more useful in England than they would be here. Let us take the rural development programme as an example. I come from a rural area, and I know how vital that programme was to our rural communities and our coastal communities, which I am also part of. Quite often in big programmes, those areas and communities are ignored.

When we are setting our priorities for Northern Ireland, I do not want to see the community and voluntary sectors tearing each other apart trying to apply competitively for grant funding that sees some of those organisations disappear. We almost had that with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. There were supported employment programmes that saw one side compete against the other at a time when we had the worst figures for the number of people with disabilities in employment. We need all those sectors to come together and deliver for Northern Ireland.

We also need to consider sustainability. Any of you who have worked in the community and voluntary sector will know exactly what I am talking about. When long-term funding is not available, all of a sudden, you have to invent programmes in order to apply for the money. There is short-termism there but not multiple savings. I could talk to you all day about how much I could have saved if I had been allowed funding over seven years instead of three years when I was buying minibuses. I could have had a longer repayment period instead of having to do it all in three years, costing me twice as much. We need to think about sustainability. European funding came in blocks of time, and we have people who are employed for blocks of time. We invest in the skills of those people for blocks of time, but we need to develop it across time so that the benefits of bringing people into employment — improving community and place, and improving peace-building — are stretched out over a longer period.

I heard Brian say that if we put it into the block grant, it would not be there specifically for those purposes, but it is up to us to make sure that money is set aside for our partners in the community and voluntary sector. After all, we have the concordat. What I would love to see from our Executive is a re-signing of the updated concordat — the partnership agreement between us and the community and voluntary sector — that at long last recognises how much we all need its work. Communities could not exist if our community and voluntary sector was to disappear. It needs sustainable funding; we need its sustainable programmes and intercessions to help our community.

I thank the Members for tabling the motion. There has to be consideration across all Departments. DAERA will be looking at rural and coastal communities and will want to have those included. The Department for Communities will be looking at people and place, and the Department for the Economy will be looking at employability. It is right that we drive that forward. We should take it forward and take it to the UK Government, hopefully with the lead of the Minister of Finance, to say, "Guys, we can do so much with this money. Let us use it in the way that would be best for Northern Ireland". Furthermore, the amount of money needs to be negotiated to make sure that we have an appropriate amount that can be spent sustainably in the way that we want.

All Members who indicated that they wished to speak have done so, so I call the Minister of Finance to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes in which to speak.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment.

The impact and benefit of the European social fund and the European regional development fund in the North was clear. The European social fund provided funding for vital services through the community and voluntary sector to support some of the most vulnerable people in society. It enabled people to develop new skills and to navigate the path to becoming economically active and promoted greater social inclusion. It was locally organised, place-based and person-focused. The European regional development fund provided funding that enhanced the competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses. It also provided much-needed funding for research and development and for the move towards a low-carbon economy.

Over the seven-year period from 2014 to 2020, those two funds invested an average of around £65 million per year in the North. We had to adhere to some EU requirements on how the money was spent, but, ultimately, it was invested locally in harmony with other programmes. As such, it was aligned with our priorities and objectives. While there were criticisms of how those funds operated, particularly the bureaucracy attached to them, the investment was significant and the results clear.

I and my predecessor, Conor Murphy, have been engaged on this issue since 2020, while activity in my Department has been ongoing since the Brexit referendum. The previous Executive took the position in 2020 on the replacement of the ESF and ERDF programmes. That called for a full replacement of the funding that we derived from EU sources, local delivery of funding using existing structures and full compliance with our unique system of government, including section 75 considerations.

The British Government's long-promised and much-delayed replacement for those funds — the Shared Prosperity Fund — fell well short of that position. The delays in launching the fund resulted in the community and voluntary sector here dealing with annual funding cliff edges with a significant impact on the capacity and, at times, even the very viability of the sector. It has delivered significantly less than the equivalent EU funds, with an average of just £35 million per annum across the three-year period in comparison with the £65 million from ESF and ERDF across seven years.

The Shared Prosperity Fund operates with a reduced scope, creating gaps in provision. It is operated directly from Whitehall according to priorities set by the British Government, with no decision-making role for our Executive, nor was it subjected to our section 75 equality scrutiny.

At times, its delivery here has lacked an understanding of the North, as it has sought to apply an English template to a place with a different structure of government and different needs. It was simply inadequate, unsuitable and late, and, frankly, it has scarred our community and voluntary sector.

With the Shared Prosperity Fund due to close at the end of this financial year and a new Government in London, there is an opportunity to do something better. The new Government made a manifesto commitment to restore control over the funds to devolved Governments. That is a welcome position, and I look forward to working with the Labour Government, Executive colleagues, the Assembly and our wider community on how that will operate in practice. The position on the replacement adopted by the previous Executive remains valuable. However, my officials are working with all the other Executive Departments to draft a document outlining the North's requirements from future funds. That will be brought to the Executive for consideration in the near future.

I wrote to Angela Rayner, on her appointment as Secretary of State, about this matter. In particular, I pressed for urgent clarity and for her to make good on the manifesto commitment to greater devolved decision-making. I will also meet Minister Norris, who has responsibility for future funding in Angela Rayner's team, next week on 17 September. I intend to press the vital importance of sufficient funding being provided; that it is provided at the right time to prevent another funding cliff edge through appropriate simplified local structures; and that it is provided in a way that minimises bureaucracy, that is aligned to our Programme for Government, that allows a meaningful decision-making role for our Executive in line with the Labour manifesto commitment and that respects local needs and differences.

It is essential that any plans associated with the Shared Prosperity Fund are set out, at the latest, in the Chancellor's Budget at the end of October. To achieve that, I intend to raise concerns about successor funding directly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as well as with Minister Norris. Failure to provide that clarity would create yet another avoidable cliff edge for the sector. That would lead to protective notices being issued, result in a loss of capacity and impact the continuing viability of our vital community and voluntary sector.

As the motion rightly says, certainty is now required. I will continue to press for urgent clarity and a meaningful devolved role in decision-making and delivery. It will require significant work from us once we have an understanding of what the Chancellor will announce. I and my Department stand ready to lead on that work and to collaboratively design, develop and deliver a meaningful programme of funding. I hope that our community and voluntary sector will soon have the certainty that it so urgently needs and deserves. Therefore, I support the motion.

Minister, thank you for that response. I call Paul Frew to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Mr Frew, you have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I commend everyone who has taken part in the debate for the sentiment that has been expressed and the demeanour of their contributions. That has happened because we all value the community and voluntary sector. Any MLA worth their salt will deal with those groups every week and will know the value that they contribute to our people in public health, mental health, transport, social inclusion, wealth, employment, regeneration and development. Every sphere of life and every sphere of governance is encapsulated in the community and voluntary sector. I want to see smaller government. That voluntary and community sector must have a pivotal role in delivering for our people — delivering better than government could ever do. That is why this is such an important matter and why we should discuss and debate it today in plenary on our first day back.

There were a lot of thoughtful and informative contributions. I do not wish to get into naming Members and picking out bits and pieces other than to say that I valued every contribution. Whilst I am a great champion of tranquillity and peaceful debate in the Chamber, this really has done my heart good because I can see the worth. Every Member who spoke and all parties have a real opportunity to unite on this issue.

I will explain our amendment. We have not sought to amend the motion to apply pressure on the Minister or to target her. We realise that, in her position with regard to finance, she is best placed to be the tip of the spear in combating poor governance from Westminster. Let us call it what it is. We have replaced Brussels with Whitehall, and it has let us down just as badly.

We have had a missed opportunity. The British Government put more funding into the EU and got less money out, so why are we left in a position where the Government give Northern Ireland less funding than EU funding was delivering? It is absolutely appalling to be in this position, so it does my heart good to hear the united voice coming out of the Chamber. We have an opportunity, and we should remain hopeful because we have a new Government in Labour. We will hold their feet to the fire with regard to the broken promises that the previous Government made to this place and its people on EU funding.

It is vital that we stress how important the funding is and the impact that this issue and the failed opportunity has had on the people who work in the community and voluntary sector and on the people who are serviced by it. It is so painful to have to live through this. It was painful enough to live through the bureaucracy of having to apply endlessly for funding on a yearly or three-yearly basis, but how much tougher is it now, when there is not the same amount of money to fulfil the needs of our people, needs that our Government will not be able to fulfil? That is why the community sector is so important to our people.

I leave the Chamber with the hope that each party gets it and will do its best to deliver for our people and that the Minister of Finance will be the tip of the spear in the protest to get adequate funding for our people. It is vulnerable people, who need it the most, who usually end up getting supplied through and serviced by that funding, so it is critical that we sing with one voice, say to the British Government, "What you have done is not good enough. The failed promises of the past are not good enough", and call on the new Government to fulfil the promises and pledges of the previous Government.

I call Áine Murphy to conclude and wind on the motion. You will have up to 10 minutes.

I thank all Members for their contributions. As Paul referenced, it is heartening to hear the Chamber speak with unity on such an important topic.

In my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for rural affairs and as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I take the opportunity to highlight how rural and border areas have greatly benefited from EU funding. For example, EU Pillar I and Pillar II programmes have provided financial support to farmers, businesses and communities.

The community and voluntary sector has played a pivotal role in providing services for our most vulnerable. One such recipient of European social funds in my constituency is Fermanagh New Horizons. I highlight the excellent work that it does, working to support the recovery of adults experiencing mental ill health who are interested in progressing towards training and employment.

Rural communities have benefited from a ring-fenced budget and multi-annual funding package and fully embrace the bottom-up approach to engage local people in the decision-making process. However, the Shared Prosperity Fund is neither rural-proofed nor equality-proofed but delivered directly by Whitehall.

It is also worth highlighting that, as with EU replacement funds for the community and voluntary sector, there is no clarity on the future of farm support. Farmers have no clarity or certainty on whether farm support worth approximately £300 million per year will continue beyond 2024. My constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is the largest recipient of farm subsidy payments and, I would argue, the most rural constituency in the North. Farmers go to the very heart of our rural communities. Without farm subsidies, how can they be expected to compete with their counterparts in the South, who benefit from a full range of EU supports?

The rural sector has been pointed in saying that, while the PEACE PLUS programme is cited a lot and the rural dimensions of that are welcome, it is not a replacement for the development programme. EU funding has provided significant benefits across a range of section 75 equality groups, including young people, people with disabilities, women and minority ethnic groups. That work has provided significant social and economic benefits, and it is imperative that EU replacement funding continues. We are in times of reduced public expenditure, worsened by the lack of clarity and certainty on EU replacement funds beyond 2025.

During the Brexit referendum campaign, the Tory Government said that the North of Ireland would not lose out — I think that the exact phrase was "pound-for-pound funding" — but, of course, Brexit has delivered a huge cut to funding. The British Government committed to replacing those funds with the Shared Prosperity Fund, but that falls far short of what was delivered through the European social fund and the European regional development fund. After 14 years of a Tory Government who created and delivered austerity and Brexit, there will be a huge consequence for the community and voluntary sector, rural development and rural communities if the British Government do not replace EU funding in full. The community and voluntary sector needs certainty, clarity and stability. The current British Government must fulfil their promise to replace all EU funding in full.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly acknowledges the positive impact that the European regional development fund and the European social fund have had on our society; notes British Government failure to deliver on the commitment to fully replace EU funding after Brexit; further notes that the previous British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund does not constitute the full replacement of EU funding; recognises the uncertainty for community and voluntary sector organisations regarding the continuation of the Shared Prosperity Fund post 2025; calls on the current Government to fulfil the promise to replace EU funding in full and to provide certainty for community and voluntary sector organisations beyond March 2025; and further calls on the Minister of Finance to make it clear to the Government that future programmes must be developed with due regard to the Executive's agreed priorities, and with meaningful input from local Ministers, in order to maximise opportunities for communities and projects across Northern Ireland.

Adjourned at 6.12 pm.